Theft by a stranger? Someone known to them? Mugging? Is the thief stealing from something small, such as a locker? Or from a building? A store? Other business? Home? From an outside area, such as those who steal street signs? Is the specific target item relevant?

Ciaobella: Theft by a stranger? Initially, yes. Someone known to them? Later, yope.Mugging? Is the thief stealing from something small, such as a locker? Or from a building? A store? Other business? Home? From an outside area, This is closest. such as those who steal street signs? But nothing like this example.Is the specific target item relevant? Just the general description.

Balin: Was there only one thief? One main thief.Would the thief have committed another crime along with theft? Strictly speaking, yes.

Amu: Is it relevant who "they" are (the persons who wanted to prevent the theft)? In the original story they were a family, but the puzzle would work well also for a group of friends. And how many of "them" there are? More than 5? Originally, there were 10, but smaller number also would do.

Are they trying to protect more than one thing? Are those things in a storage unit? A vehicle? Is the thief H/A/M? Relevant? You said initially the thief was a stranger- did the thief steal from them once (which prompted them to try to protect their property) and then again?

Ciaobella: Are they trying to protect more than one thing? Yope.Are those things in a storage unit? Yes. A vehicle? No.Is the thief H/A/M? Yes. Relevant? Not so much.You said initially the thief was a stranger- did the thief steal from them once (which prompted them to try to protect their property) and then again? Well, this is very hard to answer... This is not what I meant when I wrote that the thief was originally a stranger, but there is something OTRT in this question.

Were the items buried in some place? by the ancestors of those who now are searching? in order to protect the items from looters? (during WWII?) The family now found out about the fact that their ancestors hide their valuables? found out the exact location? and now set out to recover the things?

Sundowner: Were the items buried in some place? Yes.. by the ancestors of those who now are searching? ...yes... in order to protect the items from looters? (during WWII?) ...and yes.The family now found out about the fact that their ancestors hide their valuables? Yes. found out the exact location? Yope. and now set out to recover the things? Yes.

Did the thief overhear a conversation of the family? Did the family and the thief ever meet? if so: before the thief found the items? after? You mentioned the family was on a trip .. was this also where they met the thief? maybe in the train? in the aircraft? Were they traveling to the place where the items were hidden? (without knowing about that?) Did the family know in the first place at all that their ancestors had buried their valuables? Were the items hidden in or near the place where the ancestors used to live? and just an idea: Were they hidden in a grave?

Sundowner: Did the thief overhear a conversation of the family? Assume no.Did the family and the thief ever meet? Assume no. if so: before the thief found the items? after? You mentioned the family was on a trip .. Yes. was this also where they met the thief? See above. maybe in the train? in the aircraft? Were they traveling to the place where the items were hidden? Yes. (without knowing about that?) And yes.Did the family know in the first place at all that their ancestors had buried their valuables? NO - they got known during the trip.Were the items hidden in or near the place where the ancestors used to live? YESand just an idea: Were they hidden in a grave? No, but very good idea, and not so far from the real one.

So the family was traveling to the place where their ancestors used to live? to visit this place? to visit other relatives who were still living there? to visit the grave of their ancestors? During the trip? after arrival? they found out that their ancestors had buried their valuables? somewhere? in their house? garden? nearby? Did the ancestors bury the items themselves? Was the thief or his ancestors in any way involved in the hiding of the valuable items? Are the thief's ancestors relevant at all? Was the thief a local person of the place where the family's ancestors used to live? Did he see the family walking around there? Did he make the right conclusion just from his knowledge of the location? Did he think about where he would hide valuable items, and searched there?

Sundowner: So the family was traveling to the place where their ancestors used to live? Yes. to visit this place? Yes. to visit other relatives who were still living there? And yes. to visit the grave of their ancestors? No.During the trip? Yes. after arrival? they found out that their ancestors had buried their valuables? Yes, see the notice below about "buried". somewhere? Yes. in their house? No. garden? Yope. nearby? Yes.Did the ancestors bury the items themselves? Yesish.Was the thief or his ancestors in any way involved in the hiding of the valuable items? No, but - see below Are the thief's ancestors relevant at all? No.Was the thief a local person of the place where the family's ancestors used to live? Thief got his information from locals, whose ancestors helped to bury the treasure, sometimes used these locals as accomplices.Did he see the family walking around there? Yes.Did he make the right conclusion just from his knowledge of the location? Yes. Did he think about where he would hide valuable items, and searched there? No - there was a clue indicating the specific place, but...

Kaylee: Redwine!!! =) long time no see ^_^ *givz cheezburgur* =) yay! how is marriage treating you? Very well, cannot complain =)

is "the location" relevant? in Europe? Asia? North or South America? Africa? Australia/Oceania? Antarctica? Sorry, but no. let me guess, they're penguins who buried special tuna and herring somewhere =D Lovely solution, but no.

Is now the only thing left to find out the specific place where the items were hidden? were they buried? in the open ground? under a stone? in, at, under a tree? hidden in a building? in a vehicle? on private ground? on public ground? were the items in a box or container? if so: was the size of the container about the size of a bread box? of a travel case? larger? Do we have to find out the exact kind of valuable items?

Sundowner: Is now the only thing left to find out the specific place where the items were hidden? No - nothing about the plan to prevent the crime has been discovered yet.were they buried? Yesish. in the open ground? No. under a stone? Yope. in, at, under a tree? No.hidden in a building? Noish. in a vehicle? No.on private ground? Yes. on public ground? No.were the items in a box or container? Yes. if so: was the size of the container about the size of a bread box? of a travel case? larger? This.Do we have to find out the exact kind of valuable items? No. Assume old jewelry of historical value.

Was the chest underground? In a constructed space underground? In a tomb? Under a house? In an underground space used for a specific purpose? Were the jewels hidden there because it was considered unlikely that people would look there? If so, is this because the nature of the place is somewhere people would not want to look? Because people would not know that the place existed?

Jane: Was the chest underground? Yes. In a constructed space underground? Yes. In a tomb? No. Under a house? No. In an underground space used for a specific purpose? Yesish. Were the jewels hidden there because it was considered unlikely that people would look there? Probably yes. If so, is this because the nature of the place is somewhere people would not want to look? No. Because people would not know that the place existed No.

HINT: The chest was hidden in a hurry - so the place must have been not far away and easy to reach...

RECAP & HINT: During holiday trip, a family discovered that their ancestors had buried a treasure chest in an OLD well (no longer in use) in their estate. Someone else got known this too and also wanted to get the treasure, with the help of local accomplices. The family got a very good idea how to prevent the treasure being stolen from its hiding place. If they had paid more attention to their idea, the criminal wouldn't have succeeded. But because they hadn't, the criminal got the treasure and escaped the country.

Did they fill it with anything? Was their plan designed to obscure the treasure from view? To make the thieves think it wasn't there any more? To make it impossible for them to reach it? To make it impossible for them to take it away? To somehow alert the family or authorities if they did so?

Enjay: Did they fill it with anything? No. Was their plan designed to obscure the treasure from view? No. To make the thieves think it wasn't there any more? No. To make it impossible for them to reach it? No. To make it impossible for them to take it away? No. To somehow alert the family or authorities if they did so? Yesish, this is closest.

Did the family know for sure that the chest was in the well? Did they see it there? Was it visible for somebody who looked into the well? Did they dig for it? Was the well on public ground? on private ground? if on private ground: was the ground owned by the family? did they plan to buy it? to reclaim it? Was the well easily accessible for a stranger? Did the people in the town know at all that there was (used to be?) a well? Did they make to appear that there was no treasure in the well? that it was in a different place? that they already had retrieved it? Did they tell the police about the treasure? Did they pay somebody to guard the well?

Sundowner: Did the family know for sure that the chest was in the well? Finally, yes. They considered several wells, but within the timeframes of this puzzle there was only one left. Did they see it there? No. Was it visible for somebody who looked into the well? No. Did they dig for it? YES.Was the well on public ground? on private ground? This. if on private ground: was the ground owned by the family? Yes. did they plan to buy it? to reclaim it? Was the well easily accessible for a stranger? Yes.Did the people in the town know at all that there was (used to be?) a well? Assume yes.Did they make to appear that there was no treasure in the well? No. that it was in a different place? No. that they already had retrieved it? No.Did they tell the police about the treasure? Not before it was taken from the well.Did they pay somebody to guard the well? No.

Did they dig in this well? until they reached the chest? or did they dig in other places? and from not finding anything there they concluded it must be this place? Would it help to find out why they did not take the chest with them immediately after they found it? Did the thief overlook their digging activities? find afterwards traces? Did the family tell anybody about the treasure? about its location? about the fact that they found it? if so: was among the people whom they told the thief? Is there anything special about the well? Would one have to destroy the well in order to get the chest out? Were any animals involved in the family's plan to protect the treasure? Did their plan involve to make it difficult to get to the well? to get inside the well? to take the chest out? to move the chest to another place? to open the chest? to take items out of the chest? Was the idea that, even if somebody attempts to steal the chest, he would leave enough traces to be clearly identified later?

Enjay: If the plan had worked correctly, could the thief have still got to the well? Got inside the well? Retrieved the treasure? Taken the treasure off the family's land? Sold the treasure on? Yes to all.

Would it have served as a warning system that someone was on their land? YES... That someone was near the well? ...and YES. That the treasure had gone? No.

Sundowner: Did they dig in this well? Yes. until they reached the chest? Yesish. or did they dig in other places? Previously, yes. But irrelevant. and from not finding anything there they concluded it must be this place? Previously, yes. But irrelevant.Would it help to find out why they did not take the chest with them immediately after they found it? No, maybe just to complete the story.Did the thief overlook their digging activities? No. find afterwards traces? Yes, the family didn't keep their activity in secret.Did the family tell anybody about the treasure? Yes. about its location? No, because they didn't know exact location. about the fact that they found it? No. if so: was among the people whom they told the thief? No.Is there anything special about the well? Only that it was no longer in use.Would one have to destroy the well in order to get the chest out? No.Were any animals involved in the family's plan to protect the treasure? No.Did their plan involve to make it difficult to get to the well? to get inside the well? to take the chest out? to move the chest to another place? to open the chest? to take items out of the chest? No to all.Was the idea that, even if somebody attempts to steal the chest, he would leave enough traces to be clearly identified later? Yesish.

Was the "warning system" set up to alert the family (or anybody else? the police?) if somebody was near the well? at the same moment? later? Would the alert have been visual? by sound? otherwise? if sound: would the thief himself produce the sound? Was any electronic device involved? GPS? GSM? camera surveillance? Did the warning system work? did it work but nobody noticed? did it work but it was too late? Did the family set up something especially in order to collect traces of the thief? like: footprints? fingerprints? Was the idea that the thief gets marked in some way (or his clothing? his car?) when he comes near the well? Did they mark the treasure? (visibly? invisibly?) Or was the idea rather to make it difficult for the thief to leave the place after he had taken the chest?

Sundowner: Was the "warning system" set up to alert the family This. (or anybody else? the police?) if somebody was near the well? Yes. at the same moment? No. later? Yes.Would the alert have been visual? Yes. by sound? otherwise? if sound: would the thief himself produce the sound? No to the rest.Was any electronic device involved? GPS? GSM? camera surveillance? No to all.Did the warning system work? Yes. did it work but nobody noticed? Yesish, explore. did it work but it was too late? A bit of this, too.Did the family set up something especially in order to collect traces of the thief? Yes. like: footprints? This. fingerprints? Was the idea that the thief gets marked in some way (or his clothing? his car?) when he comes near the well? No.Did they mark the treasure? No. (visibly? invisibly?) Or was the idea rather to make it difficult for the thief to leave the place after he had taken the chest? No.

Was there soft ground by the well? Mud? Wet cement? Some other substance that would collect footprints? Did the thief somehow avoid leaving footprints? Or left misleading ones?

Was the idea that the family would know there was a thief about, so could then rush out and stop them? If so, did they notice the alert too late, or it worked too late, so the thief had got away? Or would it let them get away, but make it easier to identify the thief later?

Enjay: Was there soft ground by the well? Yesish. Mud? Wet cement? Some other substance that would collect footprints? No to the rest. Did the thief somehow avoid leaving footprints? No, but the effect was as if he had done this. Or left misleading ones? No.

Was the idea that the family would know there was a thief about, so could then rush out and stop them? Yes. If so, did they notice the alert too late Yope. or it worked too late No., so the thief had got away? Yes. Or would it let them get away, but make it easier to identify the thief later? This too, but the main purpose was to know whether someone was near the well.

Were the footprints clearly visible from a distance (or was this the idea)? and the family just looked out of the window from time to time to see whether there are any footprints? Were there any footprints initially when the thief was around? did they disappear later? get destroyed? concealed? washed away? Did the thief remove his footprints afterwards? Did it rain? Was the idea that the thief steps into paint on some point during his way to the well?

Sundowner: Were the footprints clearly visible from a distance (or was this the idea)? No, and it wasn't the idea. and the family just looked out of the window from time to time to see whether there are any footprints? No, they regularly checked the surrounding of the well for footprints.Were there any footprints initially when the thief was around? Yes. did they disappear later? Yes. get destroyed? concealed? Either destroyed or concealed, DOYD. washed away? Did the thief remove his footprints afterwards? Yes.Did it rain? No.Was the idea that the thief steps into paint Not the paint. on some point during his way to the well? Yes, except from the paint.

Enjay: Would the footprints have been imprinted into the ground (ie by the thief sinking in)? This. Or printed on the ground (ie by the thief treading first in something that would leave a mark)? Was the thief meant to know he had left footprints? It did not matter. Were they only visible under UV light or something similar? No.

Did the thief scrub away his footprints? Cover them up with something? Yes... Leave many more marks all over the ground so the footprints were indistinguishable? No, quite the opposite.

Were his footprints visible after he had left? Did he smooth the ground over again afterwards? Did he walk backwards, so it looked like he was leaving the well? Did he wear something on his feet to disguise his footprints?

Enjay: Were his footprints visible after he had left? No. Did he smooth the ground over again afterwards? Yes. Did he walk backwards, so it looked like he was leaving the well? No. Did he wear something on his feet to disguise his footprints? No.

Sundowner: Did the thief cover his footprints somehow? No - he smoothed the ground. with the material he had dug out from the well? No.

Had the family softened the ground? with water from the well? but left the bucket and rope they had used? Had they hid something in the soft ground? which would produce a visual effect that would scare the thief and alert the family?

Tsoram: Had the family softened the ground? Yope. with water from the well? No. but left the bucket and rope they had used? No. Had they hid something in the soft ground? No. which would produce a visual effect that would scare the thief and alert the family? No.

Did they intend to soften the ground? Noish. is this just a byproduct of their warning scheme? Yesish. or was it softened by accident and then used as part of the warning scheme? No.

is it part of the warning scheme? or are we looking for something else?

Their scheme was to do something with the ground around the well. As a result, there was softened ground around the well. The purpose was to observe footprints to know if the thief approached the well.

The tool... a common tool? Yes. sharpened? Yesish. blunt? No. I've been away from the forum for a while...is there a current list of tools?

Shez: was it a rake? Yes. and because they had left it nearby the thief was able to rake over his own footprints? Yes.

Tsoram: Hmmm...

Was the family's scheme complete? well maintained (excuse pun!)? or had they through inattentiveness allowed it to become ineffective? I'm not sure if I understand... The plan was good, but because of lack of attention to one point, the thief had succeeded.

Is how the ground was softened relevant? Only to completeness of the story. to the scheme? to the failure of the scheme?

Was the tool used in the scheme at all? Yes. was it associated with the well.. No. with attempts to reach the treasure? Probably yes.

Ok.... clarification... not about how good the plan was but rather about how the inattentiveness might have affected it..

Was the plan complete... had they done everything in the plan? was the inattentiveness to do with not following through on every aspect? (eg plan was to soften the ground and spead tacks, but they had forgotten to spread the tacks?)

well maintained... was the plan one that would lose effectiveness over time or in certain conditions... eg they ignored the fact that it had rained and washed something that had been spread away? or maybe just the ground had dried somewhat in the sun and thereby lost the necessary quality to track a thief?

Tsoram: Ok.... clarification... not about how good the plan was but rather about how the inattentiveness might have affected it..

Was the plan complete... had they done everything in the plan? Yes. was the inattentiveness to do with not following through on every aspect? No.(eg plan was to soften the ground and spead tacks, but they had forgotten to spread the tacks?)

well maintained... was the plan one that would lose effectiveness over time No. or in certain conditions... Possibly. eg they ignored the fact that it had rained and washed something that had been spread away? or maybe just the ground had dried somewhat in the sun and thereby lost the necessary quality to track a thief? I think this is the case, but no to the examples given.

Sundowner: Did they rake up the ground in order to make fresh footprints clearly visible? This was not the only reason. but left the rake at the well? Yes. and the thief saw the rake and immediately understood what was going on? Yes.

Shez: isn't it simply that if they hadn't left the rake lying around the thief would not have been able to obliterate his footprints? No. Even if the rake hadn't been not left nearby, the thief could have easily got another one.

Sort of RECAP & HINTS: The plan was to bring some soil of different colour around the well and regularly check for footprints. Nothing more to add to their plan. The family didn't rake the ground only once. The family also left the footprints.

is the type of soil important?...eg the soil around the well is soft... but the soil of a different colour hardened after getting wet... thus allowing the thief to approach without leaving the necessary prints?

Kyeannpepper: So did the thief know that they had already walked on that ground? Yes. And then raked away their footprints? Yes. Giving him the idea/letting him know that he could rake his footprints away as well? Possibly, but it was not crucial.

Slatebluegrey: Is the time of day when they were doing the raking and stuff important? No.- Was it day time? Yes.- Was it day time and the thief could've seen them?

Was the weather condition important? No.- Did it rain and the well filled up and the chest rose to the top and the thief took it?

Tsoram: is the type of soil important?...eg the soil around the well is soft... but the soil of a different colour hardened after getting wet... thus allowing the thief to approach without leaving the necessary prints? This is not the idea.

or are we all just leaving prints around the wrong well? No. I think you just overcomplicate this.

You also said the ground was being raked for another reason besides just to make a trap.

Would the rake(s) be there or near by even if this heist/heist prevention was not happening?

Was the rake one of the tools used to dig up the well? (I know its a dumb question but had to ask)

Is the families inattentiveness related to leaving the rake behind? Not thinking the thief would catch on? Not paying enough attention to watch the thief commit the crime? Failing to remember something about the area? The thief? The thief's local accomplices and/or their relation to the area

You also said the ground was being raked for another reason besides just to make a trap.

Would the rake(s) be there or near by even if this heist/heist prevention was not happening? Yes.

Was the rake one of the tools used to dig up the well? (I know its a dumb question but had to ask) No.

Is the families inattentiveness related to leaving the rake behind? No. Not thinking the thief would catch on? No. Not paying enough attention to watch the thief commit the crime? Noish. Failing to remember something about the area? Yesish. The thief? No. The thief's local accomplices and/or their relation to the area No.

Did the family fail to watch out for the thief's footprints? did they watch out but did not see them? did the thief leave any footprints? were the thief's footprints concealed? removed? mixed with lots of other footprints? Did the family see the thief's footprints but failed to draw the right conclusion from seeing them? Is there anything special about the ground or the location relevant? Relevant that the treasure was in a well? would the puzzle work equally well if the treasure was in a cave?

Enjay: Did the family fail to realise that they too would leave prints round the well? This is very much OTRT. Did they see the thief's prints, but assume they had been left by a family member? No, they didn't see the thief's prints.

Did the fact that they had raked up the ground alert the thief to the treasure in the first place? No.

Sundowner: Did the family fail to watch out for the thief's footprints? No. did they watch out but did not see them? Yes. did the thief leave any footprints? Yes. were the thief's footprints concealed? removed? This - by raking the ground. mixed with lots of other footprints? Did the family see the thief's footprints but failed to draw the right conclusion from seeing them? No, but they indeed failed to draw the right conclusion from what they had seen.Is there anything special about the ground or the location relevant? Only that it was softened. Relevant that the treasure was in a well? Not very much. would the puzzle work equally well if the treasure was in a cave? Yes, if the cave was surrounded by softened ground.

Sundowner: Did the thief leave the rake in a different place? Irrelevant.

Enjay: Did they see that the ground had obviously been recently raked, but assumed that was just from the family raking away their own prints? YES!

Did they have a false alarm whereby they thought there was a thief but it was just the family's prints? No.

*********SPOILER************* The family got known that their ancestors had hidden a treasure in a well. They came to their family estate (in which their distant cousin lived) and started exploring. The problem was, that there were several wells in the estate, so they had to check them all. Soon they became aware of the presence of the thief in the area. The thief also knew about the treasure and had a local accomplice. Unfortunately, when they started exploring the last well, the good weather was soon to end. They decided to help their cousin harvesting the crops - but they had to secure the well. So they brought to the place a certain amount of fair, soft soil, in which any possible footprints were clearly visible. They raked the soil often, and they didn't inform each other every time about it. That's why they didn't notice that there were always so little of their footprints to rake - too little, considering that everybody was highly interested in the exploration and visited the site very often. Because of this, they didn't realize that someone else must have raked the ground in between. And one day they noticed that the surrounding of the well has slightly changed. Then they discovered the well explored and half of the treasure gone.

Thanks to everybody who played and congrats to Enjay for solving the puzzle.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.